3 ms·
I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread conflating a refusal to monetize with removal of content. That's not the same thing at all. If companies had infinite
by teawrecks 8y ago
I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread conflating a refusal to monetize with removal of content. That's not the same thing at all. If companies had infinite time and resources, advertising companies wouldn't be a thing, companies would work directly with every content creator they were interested in. An ideal advertising company simulates this
- teawrecks 8y ago(cont.) ...so if a company doesn't want to sponsor content about guns, the legality of guns is irrelevant. YouTube hooks product creators with content creators they want to work with, that's their business. Now if YouTube doesn't want to host certain content at all, even if no product creators want to advertise with them, THAT seems ethically questionable.
- ErikVandeWater 8y agoI agree in part with them and in part with you. I agree with you that they are using language loosely and it harms their point - let's not forget, hosting content is not free. YouTube is still subsidizing every video that is de-monetized. Howevery, I think their overall point is that there should be a standard principle regarding content. There should not be "levels" of content where content that advocates a particular view, or comes from a particular group of people is deprioritized, unless that view is heinous or the content itself is dangerous. YouTube wants to be treated a public forum, so should not hold some views over others unless it is actively harmful.